Season 7 Episode 12 - How I Started My YouTube Child Support Education - The TRUTH

          How I Started My YouTube Child Support Education - The TRUTH

    How I Started My YouTube Channel About Child Support Made Simple was a journey driven by my passion for educating parents about the complexities of child support laws. I noticed a significant gap in public understanding of these legal matters.

    Determined to make reliable information accessible, I launched my YouTube channel to simplify child support laws, debunk myths, and empower parents with knowledge.

    Through engaging videos, real case discussions, and expert insights, my goal was to help individuals navigate the legal system with confidence.

                                                 Study Discussions 
-Blessing vs. Freestone:

    This case is detailed as central to understanding child support, with fundamental insights into Title IV D as a contractual agreement between federal and state governments. It states that private individuals cannot enforce these contracts in legal settings.  

-Bonita Lerrro:

    The host discusses this unsuccessful lawsuit, revealing insights into how state obligations to calculate post-judgment interests aren't enforceable by individuals, thus underscoring the contractual dynamics between federal and state entities.  

                                                       Contact Us

❤️ Please Donate to Support The Research ----------
💎   https://bit.ly/ChildSupportMadeSimple
        https://CASH.APP/$chrish289

📖 To Schedule Discussion and Connect ----------
👥 Calendar: https://bit.ly/Calendar-ChildSupport
📢      Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com

                                                     Social Media
📝 Let's Connect On Social Media -------------
👍 Facebook: https://bit.ly/FB-ChildSupportMadeSmple
🐦     Twitter: https://twitter.com/chrish289
📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrish289/

Chapters

• 0:00 Child Support Introduction
• 2:55 Historical Context
• 4:31 Challenge Legal Jurisdiction
• 6:58 Mother's Role
• 8:29 Blessing vs Freestone, U.S. Support Court
• 12:35 Class Action Lawsuit
• 16:47 Program Structure
• 19:39 Incentive Payments
• 21:22 Key Takeaways
• 24:17 Call To Action
• 41:00 Supreme Court Cases

Transcript

Transcript:

           How I Started My YouTube Child Support Education - The TRUTH

Welcome. 

Do you know why I started my channel on the child support education? Child Support is a $60 billion with the B industry and affects mostly men, some women, but mostly men. Child support is a federal program. Child support is a state program.
A little bit of both. This is the misconception. I'm going to walk you through this presentation what child support is and you can avoid it. I repeat, what child support is, you can avoid it.

In order to avoid the child support program, I will do a deep dive. One Supreme Court case and one a state case, Blessing vs Freestone, 520 US 329 decided on 1997 and a state case, Bonita M LRO, NJ DHS was decided on 2011. By the way, this was an appellate court case so I'll walk you through step by step. The child support program. All 50 states must obey the Supreme Court the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot refuse to follow them.

The case law is Cooper's vs. Aon, 358 US 1, which was decided in 1958. Justice Ketanja Brown Jackson was newly appointed to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is final. Chief Justice John Marshall suggests that a decision in one state must be recognized in other states and the state is final.

The case law is Ableman versus Booth, 62 U.S. 560 as well as Howlett vs Rose, 960 U.S. 356. The New Jersey state case can be applied in all 50 states, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, all 50 states. When it comes to the topic of child support, Candace Owens is wrong.

She's a wonderful lady, you know, I'm not faulting her, but when it comes to this issue, she has the child support topic very wrong. Preview the video President Franklin Delano Roosevelt started a new deal with the American people. 

The program was created under the name Aid to Dependent Children by the Social Security Act of 1935 as part of the New Deal. It was created as a means tested entitlement which subsidized the income of families where fathers were deceased, absent or unable to work. The federal government required authorized state discretion to determine who received aid and in what amount.

In 1961, a change in the law permitted states to extend benefits to families where the father was unemployed, a measure which 25 states eventually adopted. The words families with were added to the name in 1962. This is a reality check. If you're on child support, then my suggestion is to Download the new DOJ letter from 2023, you can fil it into your family court case and you can get it at childsupport.newsandler.com childsupport.newealandler.com. file it into your case.

The five Supreme Court cases that you should already know. Preview that video. Preview our lesson Understanding jurisdiction Lesson one and lesson two. Jurisdiction is the cornerstone of our judicial process. Without it, a judge cannot rule.

I have another video, the history of child support. Check it out. There is an old maximum of law that says ignorance of the law excuses not and the ignorance about the law excuses no one. And the state is state. vs Miller June 9, 2007 and it goes for judges and attorneys.

You've often heard mothers say that I will put the fathers on child support. Well, we're going to look at that more closely in this session and we will rely on the case law called Blessing vs Freestone. 

Blessing is the cornerstone of the child support process where the Supreme Court decides exactly what happens in the title 4D program where it says it does not constitute a federal right and that whether or not a particular person, the custodial mother or the child is a benefit from Title I 4D. 

Now this is a follow on to the first part of the program where mother did not put you on the program, Part one. 

This is where we showed that based on the case law that if the mothers were on food stamps or any sort of food benefit that it does not translate that fathers are on the child support system.

If you haven't seen that video, watch this video after you've previewed this one here. So in this session we're going to discuss in addition to Blessing vs Freestone, another case called Benita Lerro out of New Jersey. And it was argued in 2011. Now this particular case is a class action suit brought by the mothers and so we're going to look at that as well. So here's the premise of this video.

Can mothers force fathers on child support? I'm going to tell you the answer right now. The answer is no. However, stick around. Please don't leave.
Let's take a look closely and see how that translate in these court cases. And we're going to center around this particular statute, which is 45 CFR 264.30. 

And again, we'll discuss this further. We have a video called defending your rights. And in this session it's important that you understand what your rights are.

Hello, my name is Chris. And in this session we're going to show that mothers are not the individuals or persons that put men or fathers on child support. It is the state. So let's look further into this. As always, we have a non lawyer maxim that here on this channel what we do is we review case laws and then we provide you the feedback as to its results.

We have a section called Call to Action that is we give you tips and strategies in how you can remedy this problem about whether mom actually put fathers on child support. So let's start off with Blessing versus Freestone. As I said, it's the cornerstone of the child support process. And in Blessing, which is 520 USC 329 it was decided in 1997. So here are the key highlights from this case.

It says the enforcement scheme that Congress created in the 4D is limited. The TITF 4D contains no private remedy, whether judicial or administrative. That means the aggrieved person cannot seek redress. That is a remedy. There is no private action as well as the mother has no standing in court to sue on behalf of title 4D.

Only the state's Secretary can bring a suit for specific performance. Next, highlight the way that the Title IV D structured for the state is that the Secretary is the one that has the oversight of the program. And the only tool available to the Secretary is that they could audit for substantial compliance or they can review the program to see if it's working. And the only tool available to them is is to cut the federal funding. 

Here's another thing that was discussed in the case is that approximately 25% of the eligible children and custodial parents can go without the services of a private provided by the Title IV D program before the Secretary of the State can cut off the services to what is called AFDC grants and that is A to Families with Dependent Children.

So what is this is saying and Blessing is that the mother does not have a lawsuit in which to force Title IV D to do anything. It's a responsibility of the State Secretary in order to hold or bring in compliance with the Talle 4D program. So now let's look further into Blessing versus Freestone where let's look at it from the children's perspective as it says here. So one of the points is Title 4D is in the nature of a contract. Yes, it's a contract.

And that is the state promises to provide certain services to private individuals in exchange for which the federal government promises to give the state funds in contract law when such arrangements are made. It is A promises to pay B in exchange for What B promises to provide services for C. The person who rece received the benefit of this exchange is called the third-party beneficiary. And under contract law, the third part of any beneficiary are generally regarded as strangers to a contract. That is they cannot sue if they did not repeat receive the services.

So what's happening is if B broke the promise and not provide service for C, then the only person who can enforce that promise is party A. So let's look at another way in graphic format. So I have a picture here, right? So the federal government is A and the states are B, all 50B. So the government pours billions of dollars into the states for the child support title 4D services.

Here is C. There's a question mark I have here over the pictures that says what if C does not receive the services? Well, that's not a concern for the parents or the children. The federal government is the only one that can bring a lawsuit. Because why?

The contract is between the federal government and the state. The contract is not between the mothers, the children or the fathers. So this explains that in Blessing versesus Freestone when it says that as far as they understand, title 4D has nothing in common with the custodial parent, the mother, the child or the father. What they're saying is the agreement is only between the federal government and the state under this program. So now let's look at another case law and this time it's a class action lawsuit.

And by the way, it was not successful. And it's Bonita Lo Vers, New Jersey Department of Services, in other words, the Office of Child Support Services. So this mother, along with other mothers brought a federal lawsuit against the state of New Jersey saying that they're not complying with the law and as it says here, that they tried to enforce the compliance of the law on under what is called a 1983. 

However, in Blessing vs Freestone, it says in order to seek redress through in 1983, the plaintiff must assert what is called a violation of rights, not merely a violation of federal law. That is, if they don't collect a child support, it may be a violation of federal law, but it's not a violation of the federal rights.

So let's look closer at the class action itself. And so here the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Office of Child Support on behalf of all the mothers who have been participants in the child support System program since October 1, 2000 and who did not receive the interest calculation on their child support arrears. 

So in this case, we're talking about the arrears, the interest on the word, not the underlying order, not the child support, just the interest. So the plaintiff, which are the mothers, asserts an offendant violated her rights or their rights under 42 USC 1983 because it failed to calculate the post judgment interest charges and outstanding child support arrears as required by federal law. 

In addition, the plaintiff sought to compel child support services to calculate the interest on child support arrears and then to refund those money that was not paid out for each year that this does not happen.

So let's. What they're asking, they're asking that the mothers calculate their own interest, sort of like a check and balance, like an audit of the child support services to determine whether or not those interest were calculated correctly. And if not, they should be allowed to go into court and sue for the balance of those interests. Let's review the state case law. Benita Lerro.

So she filed a class action lawsuit. The defendant is OCSE and his behalf of all the individuals who participates in the child support program. Remember, she wants the post judgment interest charges, not the child support. The post judgment interest charges.

It continues that in order for states to efficiently collect the child support as a condition of a federal program. So we agree that child support is a federal program, not a state program. A federal program. And it goes on to say that to qualify, the state must do more than collect support payments. Comprehensive establishment of support, locate the absentee parents and help families to get the child support.

And the case law is Blessing versus Freestone. But here's the issue. The state As a Title I, 4D agency, must have services that complies with federal guidelines. For example, the state must create a separate unit to administer the child support program. And the case law is 42 U.S.C.
654, section 3. 654, section 3. So child support is separate than the state program, separate unit.

To continue, there is a cooperative agreement between DHS and the administrative office of the court which establishes the probation department. So we are dealing with two entities, not one, two entities, which means the office of administration rent the family court space inside the building of dhs. 

This is the trick that they pulled. So this is the cooperative arrangement for New Jersey. And it reads single state agency, which means it's not a part of dhs, it's the office of the court.

And on the left side it says 454, 3. Remember, single and separate agency. So this is a contract. There's a contract between DHS and The office of the courts.
To continue, the federal act provides the state will receive incentive payments pegged to the amount of child support collected and the efficiency which the collections are made. And the case law is 42 USC 658A. It's the efficiency. In other words, they don't care about violating your rights. It's the efficiency.

And it goes on to say that they will lose their funding. They have a certain amount of time in which to garnish the child support. And that's why they call it the expedited process. For fiscal year 2024, the incentive payment pool is established at a total of $713 million. This pool represents the funding that will be distributed to states as financial incentives for their performance in child support enforcement programs.

The incentive payment pool is designed to reward states for their effectiveness in managing child support enforcement programs with a focus on performance, accountability and accuracy.
For the year 2025, the incentive payments amount was $735 million. It's about a $22 million increase. Wow.

To continue the provisions of a federal statute notice, it says statute cited in Blessing vs. Freestone, that the aggravated services is provided by the state rather than the needs of a particular person, which means she does not have a right to the process, to the child support. The Supreme Court continue. 

It says, in order to seek reg redress, you must have violated my federal right, not merely federal law. So this is what the Supreme Court is saying, that you don't have a right to the program, not any of it, zilch, nada.

You don't have any right in order to have rights. As a result of the federal law, the aggravated services is provided by the state rather than the needs of a particular person, which means she does not have a right to the process, to the child support. The Supreme Court continued, says, in order to seek redress, you must have violated my federal right, not merely federal law. So this is what the Supreme Court is saying, that you don't have a right to the program, not any of it, zilch, nada. 

You don't have any right in order to have rights as a result of the federal law.
So let's consider the concept. It's a federal program, right, according to Blessing. So in other words, the mother does not have any right to the program, the father does not have right to the program, nor the kids have a right to the program. So you can avoid the program altogether. You just have to learn your laws and rules and statute here.

What we've learned thus far, whether it's the Supreme Court case or the state case with Blessing. Child support is a federal program, not a state program. It is a federal program. The guidance is a federal agency. O next.
Mother has no right to the program. So in other words, the mother cannot put the father on child support. The state puts fathers on child support, not the mother. The mother has no right because in Blessing it says that you cannot ask for a federal right because it's just a federal law. Next, the state is only interested in the payments, the payment pool, okay?

Millions of dollars to pay to the state for the payment pools. And finally, the cooperative arrangement between DHS and the administrative office of the courts, which means it is a separate agency. So if you've learned what I've told you, then you can get off of child support because child support is voluntary, not mandatory. It's a voluntary program.

So when you're on child support and you go to a hearing, just think that it's all about the incentive program. So therefore, you don't want to participate in the program because child support is voluntary, not mandatory. 

This is how you're going to be outside of the child support program and insist on that. Remain very insistent on that. You don't want to participate in the program.

You can say it very calmly. You don't have to get upset. You don't want to participate in the child support program because child support program has nothing to do with custody. It's just a money grab. 

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach us at chrish@289.protonmail.com also like and subscribe to our YouTube video and hit the notification.
Notification bell. 

We do extensive research and we bring that to you as a courtesy. It's free. However, we're asking to support the channel. We're asking for $25 or any amount will do.